Allahabad High Court
Haider Ali @ Feku vs State Of U.P And Another on 11 January, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 39711 of 2022 Applicant :- Haider Ali @ Feku Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sandeep Kumar,Manoj Kumar Singh,Satyendra Narayan Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The prayer made in the instant application is to quash the impugned orders dated 15.11.2022, 27.06.2022 and 29.07.2022 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Siddharth Nagar in Case No.598 of 2017 (Smt. Shamina Khatoon v. Suhel Ahmad), under Section 128 Cr.P.C., Police Station-Jogiya Udaipur, District Siddharth Nagar.
Learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-Siddharth Nagar vide order dated 27.06.2022 ordered for attachment of two rooms of the house of husband of opposite party no.2. The same court on 29.06.2022 ordered the auction of the attached portion of the house and vide order dated 15.11.2022 rejected the objections and further ordered for auction. The grievance of the applicant is that the house which has been attached by the authorities belongs to the applicant and not to his son Suhel Ahmed (as ordered by the trial court). By placing reliance on the copy of parivar register, it is submitted that house No. 64-A belongs to the applicant-the father of Suhel Ahmed and in that house, he lives with his wife and five sons and house no.64-B belongs to his sixth son Suhel Ahmed. Thus, on the basis of parivar register, it has been prayed that house of the applicant is separate from the house which was ordered to be attached i.e. house of Suhel Ahmed husband of opposite party no.2. The minor daughter of Suhel Ahmed is staying with the applicant in house No.64-A. On the basis of this parivar register, it is further argued that there are two house Nos.64-A and 64-B and the house which has been attached is house no.64-A and, certainly, if there is any house No.64-B in the opinion of the Court, it must be the adjoining house and if the attaching authority went to attach the house of the applicant, it was open for the applicant to ask the authorities to attach the house no.64-B rather to let them permit to attach house no.64-A but it was not done by the applicant. The applicant claims house no.64-A, which has been attached, to be his own house and admittedly he is not having document of this house in his name, though in the Court, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this house No.64-A was built by the applicant on the property of Gram Sabha, but he is again unable to show any document of the allotment of the property in his name by Gram Sabha also.
As per objections filed it is apparent that the husband of the opposite party no.2 Suhel Ahmed used to work in Saudi Arabia and out of his earning, he constructed his two room house in Deeh Abadi and it has also been stated by the opposite party no.2 in her objections that these attached rooms were the two rooms which were built by her husband. The house of the applicant is separate where the whole family stays. Though in objections it has come that Suhel Ahmed has solemnized his second marriage and has turned out the opposite party no.2 from his house and is not ready to keep her in the house.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that attached house belongs to the applicant but he is unable to show any document regarding the house or even about the land on which this house has been built by him. On the basis of parivar register, it is the version of the applicant that house no. 64-A belongs to the applicant and house no.64-B belongs to Suhel Ahmed-husband of opposite party no.2, then, there was no reason that at the time of attachment why the applicant did not pointed out to the authorities to attach the nearby house No.64-B which according to him belongs to Suhel Ahmed. This shows that the applicant has not come before this Court with the clean hands. In my opinion, there is no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant.
The instant application is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 11.1.2023 Jyotsana